Champ v. Baltimore County’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 10 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Cheryl Hooven-Lewis v. Louis Caldera (2001), 85 Cal. App. 4th 245 - Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank (2000)
3 federal appellate · 10 district · 7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (§ 101 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12113 (§ 103 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Southeastern Community College v. Davis
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Reasonable accommodation, however, does not require that an employer create a light-duty position or a new permanent position. But, if an employer has a vacant light-duty position or a vacant permanent position for which the disabled employee is qualified, it would be a reasonable accommodation to reassign the employee to that position. If the position was created as temporary job, the reassignment to that position need only be for the temporary period of the job. Therefore, if a light-duty job is a temporary job, reassignment to that job need only be for the temporary ' period of the job, and an employer need not convert a temporary job into a permanent job. However, if a light-duty job is a permanent job, the assignment to the job must be for the entire time the job exists.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nguyen v. IBP, Inc.
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.